Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#41

Post by lukas099 »

enthdegree wrote: post #40
zkldi wrote: post #30

There's quite a lot of mathematical mistakes (obvious ones, even) in DFWs work. I'm not sure whether it's intentional or not, but given that he also makes mistakes in his nonfiction it might just be that he's not a great mathematician. Like in TPK, 0/0 is Infinity and in IJ, Pemulis explains differentiation completely incorrectly, also that stuff about the mean value theorem is irrelevant?!? Still one of the greatest…

Pemulis’ absolutely worthless and wrong but also completely self-assured descriptions of calculus are part of his character

That's funny, I just got to that part in my rereading of IJ and I had no idea it was completely wrong.

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#42

Post by jawjay »

krelian wrote: post #10
markgall wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any, but maybe somebody else is. A more general question is are there any other DFW-ish math-ish writings to be found? Against The Day (Pynchon) is not really math-ish, but it does have a good bit of math (more than GR at least), and a DFW fan would probably like it. Stella Maris (McCarthy) is perhaps neither DFW-ish nor math-ish, but it is Serious Fiction centered on a mathematician and is probably…

You'll probably enjoy When We Cease to Understand the World by Benjamin Labatut.

Awesome recommendation, I enjoyed that one very much!

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#43

Post by lukas099 »

defrost wrote: post #26
passion__desire wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's a tricky one. Depression often can lead to poor choices or life paths that would be better navigated if not depressed. "Engaged with drugs" could be substituted with "compulsively gambled" or even "collected and obsessively arranged bottlecaps" in some cases. These are behaviours that can be used to avoid deeper issues behind depression which can persist and lead to bad outcomes regardless of the behaviour.

Or "obsessively built an elaborate conspiracy about MAS*H"

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#44

Post by zkldi »

enthdegree wrote: post #40
zkldi wrote: post #30

There's quite a lot of mathematical mistakes (obvious ones, even) in DFWs work. I'm not sure whether it's intentional or not, but given that he also makes mistakes in his nonfiction it might just be that he's not a great mathematician. Like in TPK, 0/0 is Infinity and in IJ, Pemulis explains differentiation completely incorrectly, also that stuff about the mean value theorem is irrelevant?!? Still one of the greatest…

Pemulis’ absolutely worthless and wrong but also completely self-assured descriptions of calculus are part of his character

That makes sense to be honest, I thought it was intentional but then seeing so many other maths errors in other DFW works led me to believe it might very well not be.

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#45

Post by copypasterepeat »

kylebenzle wrote: post #37
citizen_friend wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect them to have someone with at least an undergrad in math look over the math. Editor would help identify that

Maybe everyone that worked with DFW found him to be as insufferable and arrogant as I did and simply refused to help even when the need was clear.

Would you care to elaborate on this? Sounds like there is an interesting story here...

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#46

Post by nathan_compton »

ballooney wrote: post #38
nathan_compton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The axiom of choice isn't exactly some minor condition.

That’s why you don’t have to explicitly add it as a qualifier at every instance in which it’s implied in your work of non fiction for a general audience.

I think if you aren't deeply concerned with the axiom of choice in your work about infinity for a general audience, then the entire affair is rather farcical. Most of the "weird" stuff about infinity derives from the axiom, after all. A book about infinity, for the lay person in particular, must be in large part a book about the axiom of choice.
Post reply on HN